Choice is a Beautiful Thing…

Every once in a while, an article we post here at PL creates huge debates due to disagreements between readers and the poster, or between readers themselves on a photography-related subject. Sometimes such discussions lead to very productive results, with all parties learning something from each other. Other times, all we see is provocative and sometimes even insulting comments. One such article that contained a little bit of both was Tom Stirr’s recent post on post-processing difficult images. Before hitting the “Publish” button (and yes, I do personally publish every single article here at PL for different reasons), I already knew that it would spark up some discussions.

First, the post contained unorthodox methods of post-processing RAW files. Tom used a combination of different software tools such as DxO Optics Pro, Adobe Photoshop CS6 and Nik Software (now Google Nik Collection) to take a sample RAW file from a recent air show and process it using his workflow. Second, the post had a rather long list of steps in Photoshop that could have been avoided by using either Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom (per commenters), before the file was taken into Photoshop. And lastly, the final image looked drastically different from the original, with a lot more “pop” and saturation to make it look more vibrant – something that a lot of traditional photographers often dislike with their “no post-processing allowed” attitudes. Although the latter was thankfully not the subject of discussion, Tom’s choice of software and his steps were brought into question. The reaction to his post was negatively greeted by a few readers, who not only strongly disagreed with Tom’s methodology, but also blamed him for being a bad teacher for introducing unnecessary steps and software. Some of the key words used were “poor workflow”, “bad practice”, “unacceptable workflow for a beginner”, “unbelievably stupid process” and much more.

Despite Tom’s efforts in explaining the fact that the post was not about educating readers, but rather to show the specific steps he took to post-process his images from his “Photographing aircraft in flight with the Tamron 150-600mm lens” article (which he generously shared in response to a request from a reader), the comments kept on coming.

I wrote this article in response to such feedback and discussions. First of all, as the title of this article states, choice is a beautiful thing. It gives us options. It allows us to do what we want, when we want and how we want. It is your choice to come to this site and read it. It is your choice to read articles by your favorite author. It is your choice to share your wisdom and knowledge with others. Similarly, it is Tom’s choice to use DxO over Lightroom, so why blame him for doing something that you, or the rest of the world does not agree with? Many will not agree with my opinions, but I don’t blame them – they have their right and choice to do so. If I only gathered like-minded people in our PL team, you would have been bored to death with one-sided opinions. And God forbid, if our team at PL sat down and tried to express our political, religious and photography views, it would get real ugly. We respect our difference of opinion and our choices and when we do disagree, we try to do it in a civilized manner. John did not agree with Roman’s opinion on the 18-300mm lens, so he wrote his own, pretty funny response in his 18-300mm Part Deux article. Bob absolutely hated the Nikon Df and expressed his opinion in his “In the Nikon Df Crossfire – Heart vs Head” article. And I, on the other hand, absolutely loved what the Nikon Df offers, so I wrote my Nikon Df Rebuttal. To date, neither I, nor my wife regret selling the Nikon D3s and replacing it with the Df for shooting weddings. But if someone disagrees with me, that’s OK. I am not forcing anyone to change just because I made that choice. I always welcome opinion and feedback, because I believe that healthy criticism and discussions positively affect our work. But when we start making comparisons, telling others that our “tools” are superior, those discussions do not help anyone. There are better ways to express your opinion, rather than leaving rude comments. None of us here at PL ever said that we are the masters of photography and everything we do is right. We learn every day and take the time to share what we know with others. If you think you can do a better job or know better ways, please help us and thousands of others by sharing your knowledge. After-all, we work hard and volunteer to share what we know and have learned so far with you, our dear readers.

As I have said above, this is not the first time (and I bet not the last time either) we have had such reactions to articles. Bob got some heat about over-saturating colors in his Searching for Gold piece, while Sharif’s article on Wildlife Photography sparked up debates on what the term “wildlife” really means. Laura got rained down by Leica fans for her honest Leica M7 review and Lola got some nasty feedback for bringing up global warming in her Weekly Photography News #2 and oh boy…how many times have I been ridiculed by not only our readers, but also other websites on the Internet for some of my articles and reviews. It has been a great journey for many of us. Still, we all know very little and want to continue to learn to improve.

On Workflows and Standards

There is no such thing as a “generally accepted workflow” or a “standard” when it comes to photography. And considering the fact that photography by itself is a form of art, it will always remain subjective. As I have defined in my photography workflow article, it is totally up to you on how you want to establish your workflow. So if Tom chooses a combination of DxO, Adobe and Google software for post-processing his images and make them part of his workflow, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Why should we think that the “generally accepted” way is the best way that everyone must follow?

How many articles have we shared on using Lightroom? Many. How many on using DxO? Tom’s was the first. And certainly not the last – we really want to expand our coverage to even more software and tools. Any Gimp users out there? :)

Dare to be different. Do what you like and love what you do. At the end of the day, as long as what you do to get from point A to point B works for you, keep on doing it. If something is not right, you will get it fixed. Who knows, maybe you will invent something useful along the way while taking that different path… And lastly, don’t forget to share what you know, since it only makes this world a better place.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

If you enjoyed reading this article, please consider subscribing to our email newsletter to receive biweekly emails notifying you of the latest articles posted on the website. Email Address First Name

By checking this box I consent to the use of my information, as detailed in the Privacy Policy.

Related articles:

About Nasim Mansurov

Nasim Mansurov is the author and founder of Photography Life, based out of Denver, Colorado. He is recognized as one of the leading educators in the photography industry, conducting workshops, producing educational videos and frequently writing content for Photography Life. You can follow him on Instagram, 500px and Facebook. Read more about Nasim here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

1) Michael Bourgault

September 7, 2014 at 8:26 pm

well done. i have the Fuji x series cameras and lenses and i found a combination of beginning in Capture One Pro 7 and transferring to tiff files to Lightroom and using Nik as needed to be the best way for me to develop my photographs.I am sure to others it is amateurish and extra unnecessary steps but for me I think it is how i get the best out of my Fuji especially my XT1. thanks again for your essay.

He did not say that, he said “to others it is…” Once again, why being stuck in one narrow way of thinking when many products with their own good and bads can offer you the way YOU need to lead you where your heart is ? Don’t forget to have fun and love what you do. The only objection I see in this process is how pricey it can be, especially for beginners or amateurs. Other than that, feel free to have your own way ;)

the Fuji X series sensor is unlike any other sensor. Capture One Pro 7 keeps the sharpness including green foliage and the fuji colors. Lightroom tends to water color the greens and the colors are diminished. if you download your photographs into capture one pro to keep the sharpness and the color you can then transfer a tiff file to LR5. i find that LR5 has many more tools to complete the photograph after it is received as a tiff file from capture one pro. here is a look if you want :www.flickr.com/photo…hotostream

this was taken at a bazaar in eastern Georgia near the Azerbaijan border.

of course you have the initial cost of buying these but then you are done with that. this is how i see getting the best out of these cutting edge cameras..

@Michael Bourgault As you have clearly thought through your process and understand why you do what you do, I see no reason for calling it ‘amateurish and full of unnecessary steps’. In my book that makes it perfectly rational.

i believe i was much more clear after you made comment. on this site there is more and more interest in the fuji x series of cameras. there is also a certain devotion to lightroom and maybe for other cameras that is fine. the real thing to me is the downloading of the fuel. which system renders the best downloading of the fuji file. for me it is easy CAPTURE ONE PRO 7. after that it is also easy to transfer a tiff file to lightroom and then develop your photograph from a file that is a much better file than one you download into lightroom direct. if you look at some of my photographs in flickr you can be the judge of that. i had hoped NASIM would also take notice and think about my approach. he knows that lightroom is not totally accurate for fuji files and he is very fond now of the fuji cameras.

to me the xe1 is the bargain to anyone who wants a first rate camera if they include the18-55mm lens. it is not a kit lens like sony or canon or nikon. it can be used in jpeg mode and that could be the end of it. if you want to use raw and develop photographs that is where the problem begins. thus i suggested cap one in combo with lightroom 5. if lr5 ever gets it together i would just use that. same with cap one. if they get it together i would use that – right now it takes both. best to you

Hi Michael, I’m very interested in your workflow. I use LR5 normally for Nikon RAW files but for my X-E1 I’ve been trialling Capture One. I’ve only got so far as importing a few Fuji RAW files and comparing them to the ones on LR5. I have to say they are a lot better in Capture One, especially the skin tones. I have no problems with the idea of using both for Fuji, but I do need to work out a good workflow with regards naming and keeping files in the same way as I do with LR5, so as not to double up on files, especially with those huge Tiffs. Is there any info you can link to a website or book that can help me with getting started on the process? Would be much appreciated!

Our Dear Betty, you are here again with a lot of “positive” comments. We can’t wait any longer to have access to your full of knowledge internet site. Please, just tell us the URL. We are willing to compare, and of course adopting your “unique and only valid” workflow. Don’t hide any longer under “Betty”, I would like to bring you the recognition you deserve, I am really convinced that you were behind every masterpiece that won a prize.

As the chinese saying goes, THE ONE WHO KNOWS DOESN’T TALKS, THE ONE WHO TALKS DOESN’T KNOWS, and because you doesn’t share with us I must guess your knowledge is superlative.

Please Betty, some comments, even bad ones are OK, but you, you are like a lamprea, and you feed me up, and I believe I am not the only one to feel so.

PL is a very good site, you had expressed your opinion, we understood it, but in addition to this I can’t see your comments are worth reading. They were “this was wrong, the other one too”, please write something which adds value, not only criticism.

I don’t want to follow this as an argument, feel free to reply me, but don’t wait my answer if you do so.

@nestor I shared my workflow in the “Post Processing Difficult Images” forum (56) if you would care to read it. I consider it be a sound workflow – but certainly not the only valid workflow. Also, if you would care to read my other comments, you will see that I do not advocate one particular piece of software or even one particular workflow, over another. My plea was that a workflow should actually ‘flow’ in a series of considered steps based on logic and reason rather than being just be an exercise in trial and error.

I am not responsible for every masterpiece on the internet contrary to what you may think. I have only just been able to find the time from a busy career to start organising my images and submitting work. So far I have made two submissions to two international wildlife competitions and have two images accepted. That’s all. Always happy to share.

Hmmm, I see I am being called out (again) – this time by the boss no less!

Not the whole portfolio perhaps because as I explained, I have only just got myself into a position where I am able to devote some time to organising and processing my images, but I would be happy to post a few for you. It would need to be either very soon or alternatively in a couple of months time as I completed the sale of my house yesterday and will have to move out by the end of the month – so the next few weeks will be a busy time and I will not have an office. Would say five or six be OK?

Hi Nasim I have registered myself on your site. However, it is past midnight here and I have had a long day, so if you will allow, I will post a couple of images first thing in the morning. I trust that’s OK with you.

A bit later than promised but better late than never. I have put up three images which have done well for me lately on the Photo Critique section of the Forum. They are a bit ‘quick and dirty’ as the files were optimised for print so I had to make an adjustment to colour temperature by eye to account for the use of a different calibration (I use different calibrations for print and web/projection editing) and did not have time to play around with sharpening options too much. So if anyone doesn’t like the colour or sharpness that’s the reason. 99% of my photography is wildlife and 99% of my wildlife photography happens in Africa. Everything shot on Nikon D300 and D800E. Lenses Nikkor 200-400mm F4, 500mm F4 and 70-200mm F2.8

Hope you enjoy them. My head is now above the parapet or is it on the block?

I always look forward to seeing new posts on your forum. If the subject is not of a great interest to me I just skim the article. In most cases I read the article and the comments it generates. I look at it as a great learning opportunity, for we never stop learning. Thank you for providing this forum and the wealth of information it provides.

Thank you for this short communication with your frank thoughts. I appreciate it.

I just brought myself up-to-date on what precipitated this article, in particular, Tom Stirr’s article that you reference above. I just read the article and some of the comments that followed. Frankly, I am astounded. All I can add here is that discourse on any and all topics boils down to respect and professionalism. That is where it all begins and ends.

I read Tom Stirr’s post and lots of spaitful comments about it too!! I also noticed your comment in Russian, but did not understand all of it and then I did think why you, Nasim, are so quite in not making any more comments about TS post??!!

But now you came back with GREAT reply to all of those people who left awful comments about Tom Stirr’s method of his post processing work and I do am happy about what you, Nasim, have published above,

Instead of sitting there and saying to myself – ‘man, that’s too many steps!’, I asked myself, ‘hmmm, wouldn’t do it that way myself, but maybe there’s something something in there that would be cool to learn.’

People ask me to ‘teach’ them LR and PS. For LR – I explain what each of the modules do and how the app is set up to work. Then let them rip. Do whatever they want, with me explaining stuff as they go along. For PS, I tell them there are 9000 different ways to do any one thing. Once I learn the other 8995, I’ll teach them PS…

There is no wrong way to post process as long as you’re happy with the results.

There is no best camera. The best camera is the one you have with you that helps you the image you want.

Nasim and crew …. ignore the haters, who live in a dark world of hate with their tunnel vision.

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with everything you publish either, but I appreciate the work you put in, the advice you so freely share, and the alternative points of view and methodologies that challenge my points of view and methodologies.

I subscribe to many blogs … so many that I rarely have time to read them all (there is a lot of drek out there). But I always make time to read yours … I always learn something that makes me just a pinch better than I was before I read it.

So, again, ignore the haters … they are nothing but trolls on life’s highway. And keep publishing this refreshing and informative blog.

Hi there PL team. I agree 100% with your words Nasim and welcome them as they are clarifying about a delicate subject which is individual creativity. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings as they are inspiring to walk the walk in any avenue in life. Best regards, Marcos Baumann Santiago -Chile

Many of us enthusiastic amateurs get great pleasure in trying new way to process our images. I use all of the above and find that each process has it own positives and negatives.

I always think of the painters and photographers who pushed the “known” boundaries in their lifetime and were laughed at and ridiculed.

These artists are now regarded as famous and away ahead of their time.

You just have to be aware that in each generation there are always knockers who try and push that their way of doing things is the only way. Mobile/cell phone photography was the latest to be knocked as not “real” photography. ,Whatever “real” photography is?

We should always keep pushing the boundaries, otherwise we would still be back doing cave paintings.

I appreciate your comments, Nasim, and everyone’s here, on Tom’s article and some of the negative (to say the least) comments he received. I was frankly appalled, and mostly saddened. Tom went to great lengths to share what worked for him and then got bombarded with such judgment and negativity instead of those folks simply offering what works for them. When anyone tells me in this setting or otherwise that their way is the only way I immediately feel on guard and can’t even take in what they’re saying. I find it doesn’t take much energy to be supportive of each other so we can all learn together, while I find it takes a lot more energy to be critical and judgmental. I know the harsh responses I read really sucked the energy out of me! Thanks for clearing the air, and many thanks to Tom for his article and for his calm and respectful responses to some pretty harsh comments.

While I disagree with others commenting on here with regards to banning you and Mark from Photography Life (I think so long as the discussion isn’t outright hateful, overtly antagonistic, or uses insults, then there’s at least *some* value in it), I do think you missed the point of Nasim’s article here (as well as Tom’s, which prompted Nasim’s). Hint: it’s in the title.

Maybe you just have an ax to grind? I’m not here to antagonise you (or Mark). I galdly obstained from the last article’s diatribes because it was clear it was going nowhere productive after a short while. I’m /am/ here to tell you that everyone who read Tom’s previous article and comments already knows your point. You can stop beating that horse now, I think… you attacked Tom’s development strategy; others attacked you for the attack; you defended yourself against the attacks. In the end, your opinions have been well heard; no one is unclear how you feel about things.

As Tom pointed out /several/ times (as well as Nasim, and so many others), Tom’s intent was never to propose a “best” workflow–simply “his.” Can that not sit well with you in the end?–that a professional photographer has a workflow that is not yours, and moreover, that his workflow was admittedly “his,” and not necessarily the best/simplest/etc.?

Since you’re so vocal about this all, why not take Nasim’s generous offer and post your own article that outlines “your” preferred workflow? Maybe, just maybe, others will learn from it. Then again, maybe you’re just too afraid to do so because some other Betty or Mark stands to pounce on the ways you leave SD cards in the refrigerator overnight because it seems to improve the blue tones of your photographs, before importing them into Microsoft Paint to begin your edits (and for really difficult edits, where you then export them from Paint as GIFs to Picassa for final edits with the “enhance” function.

Seriously, submit an article if you’re so passionate about this all (and you sure seem to be). The best way for you to reach an audience and give them valuable information is in a well-written article on “your” development strategy.

I’ve been working on my digital workflow since 2002 and have processed a few hundred thousand images. I read the article in question, but never looked at the comment. I thought it was informative, although different than what I may have done. But in reading the article, I would have never thought it would lead to an ugly or heated debate with name calling and require this article.

My suggestion to combat mean spirited posts is to implement a code of conduct censor any posts that violate the code. If you cannot be civil, you should not be allowed to post on the forum. In order to implement moderation, you’d really need to institute a login authentication to be able to prevent chronic violators.

As the site grows in popularity, moderating posts is the only way to promote a consistent decorum.

I loved the article and while Tom’s workflow may not mirror mine, I feel I learned much and love knowing there are numerous tools and ways that can affect the image in a positive way. I loved the finished shots and felt like they added much to the way the shot was first taken, under some difficult lighting conditions and then made to reflect what was seen or what was made more pleasing to the eye, at least to mine.

Dear Nasim I read the article Tom wrote and found it stimulating. I cannot understand the negative comments. We all work & think differently, surely there is space to accept differing styles. Processing images is a personal choice. I appreciate all the hard work that goes into writing and keeping this site informative to all of us at no cost. blessings Amar

I’m not sure moderation is the way we should go hear. I’ve been on newsgroups where the moderator had his own agenda and had a personal dislike for certain individuals despite never having even meet them. For moderation to work the moderator should totally impartial. And only moderator flagrant violations such as personal attacks and Profanity should be removed or edited out.

I am a Moderator on microsoft.answers forum and I tell you it is a hard job. And it can be quite tough to be impartial, But you absolutely must be.

And I even objected to one author (even though he was trying to use a little humor) appear to dis a Lens. I even I explained That I in fact was afflicted with such abilities that were inherited from my dad. You have to really be careful about trying to use humor/levity.

we’ve been thinking about moderation for a while now. Not only to censor seriously inappropriate comments (of which there were a few), but also to attend to our readers’ inquiries better since we do not have the time to answer all the questions. That said, if we ever do start looking for moderators, they will be people we trust completely to make the right choices and never try to silence someone just because they may be of different opinion. It is how that opinion is expressed is what matters.

Do you think future Guest contributors will be hesitant and less likely to submit content, given that Mark and Betty had essentially free reign to harass and berate a regular contributor, no less, ad inifinitum without consequences?

Carol, I certainly hope not, but then I also would not go to such extremes when judging Betty and Mark’s words. Please see my comment at the bottom of the comments section (#118). All it takes is a cool head and the situation is suddenly that much less dramatic than it seemed at first.

Romanas, no one got harrassed except perhaps Mark. Maybe I was less temperate than I should have been in my initial comment but beyond that I was hammered from all sides. I was attacked repeatedly and what I was saying misrepresented and distorted. Please reread what was said. I defended myself against what was a veritable barrage, which is why the argument went on for as long as it did. I am no quitter no matter what the odds. So if anyone got offended – you have my apology – sincerely

I personally have enjoyed and learnt from the articles Tom has written.

It is not easy to generate content. The great thing about the internet as a community, is that we can teach each other. I consider my personal responsibility to filter through everything I read, compare, and pick the parts I want to keep.

After having spent several years reading the pages of PL, I have the most respect for Nasim, Tom, and all the contributors of PL. That’s why I keep coming back.

If I had anything to say about a post, I would say it with the same level of respect that comes from appreciating the effort, passion, and commitment demonstrated by the staff of PL.

I would never use the tone found in the comments of the last article. Pompous and destructive. I would never talk to a friend like that.

Please Tom & All, keep posting. There are thousands of us for every “mark” or “betty”. We appreciate your efforts. You motivate us to explore, enjoy photography and do things differently.

All of us at Photography Life deeply appreciate the support that our readers give this site…and positive comments from readers like you is what motivates us to create content that we all hope will be relevant and helpful.

I have yet to fully find out what all the fuss is about, just come in on this one, boy has it generated some hot air, I have been out of the loop for a while as my wife has had major surgery and that has been the priority, all I can say is whenever you write an article I read and learn.

For what it’s worth I use LR and Nik and that seems to be a work flow that does it for me and where did I get that nugget of info, well Photography Life actually, now I am moving to add Photo Shop CC into the equation.

Over the years I’ve noticed it is unfortunately easier to comment either in positive or negative prose in response to a topic genuinely and initially posted to promote learning. Oftentimes prematurely, without the response being well thought out or having taken the time to do a little home work on the matter presented.

Usually the end point is not for one to mimic — but take from it what best works for your style or incorporate those elements. There is absolutely no need to respond uncivilly hiding behind anonymous pretense. The deep effort of moderation with stress upon objective composure is appreciated and extremely rare in forums / posts on topics related to art and its iterations.

We are truly living in a time that allows each of us to capture a moment and share with others (or not). Additionally, there have been ( and are) resources allotting valuable insight to topics to hone ones hobby or craft. I personally feel this site is an evolutionary one; and the peeps that manage and contribute to it are appreciated by the majority at a large margin.

I personally like bright and saturated photographs (on certain subjects) and appreciated Tom’s description of his workflow.

Photography is an art form – while stricter guidelines are certainly appropriate for photojournalism and some kinds of documentary work – when one is making images for art, there are no rules. The image is king. At least, that’s my opinion.

Anyone is of course free to like or dislike anything they want – but no one can tell another artist what they should or shouldn’t do. Again, my opinion.

Thanks for sticking up for the free flow of information and artist’s rights.

I personally welcome all the contribution of the staff here at PL. They ALL do a great job, even when I don’t see eye-to-eye with their position(s). Yet, it does provide a healthy perspective that I take to heart with a grain of salt.

Well actually, I think if one is going to make public, a workflow, or anything else of a personal nature, one would need to wear one’s asbestos underwear and simply realize that disagreements, strong or otherwise, are inevitable. It’s part of the price one pays for a world wide audience. I personally didn’t respond to that particular article as it was not something that applied to me. At the same time, I think one should respond with a criticism – if it is a criticism – with some manners. But not everyone will and so refer to asbestos underwear comment.

I agree, such discussions are inevitable! However, having worked in hospitality for many years (my last job was VP of IT at a hotel management company), asbestos was a nightmare every time we took over a hotel. Very costly, and sometimes impossible to remove. So asbestos pants is like wearing cancer :)

In case you have not yet noted, Mark and Betty are back at it (Betty on this post) and Mark on Tom’s post. I would like to cast my vote for a permanent ban of Mark and Betty. Their commentary is now reaching psychopathic lows. I doubt anyone would object.

One of the things that attracted me to this site few years back was the fact that comments were always respectful and I learned from them almost as much as from articles themselves. Well, as the site grows bigger (deservedly I must say) it also attracts more readers and some of them will just comment in inappropriate way. I always try to ignore them. Nothing good ever comes up from such conversation.

Fortunately, this is a minor problem here and this site is a great source of knowledge which I keep coming back to almost every day.

I would endorse the use of DXO Optics Pro (9.5) any day of the week over ACR. Why? Simple! I changed (upgraded) my camera and found my current version of Photoshop’s included ACR would not support my new camera RAW files, nor could the ACR be updated or patched from the Adboe site. The ONLY option was to buy the latest retail version of Photoshop before it went onto ‘the cloud’, or to subscribe to ‘the cloud’. That is pathetic after spending the equivalent of a good camera body on buying the software only 18 months earlier.

I was initially forced to use Adobe DNG conversion software on my RAW files, so that my legacy copy of Photoshop would work. In the intervening weeks when I was stuck, and researched an alternative, flicking through a photo magazine Optics Pro’s ad caught my attention. I went onto the website and downloaded the one month trial. WOW!

It has an interface somewhat like ACR but the images are spread across the bottom of the page rather than to the right. Clicking on one of the images opens it up in the main processing window, and sets a ‘timer’ spiral (similar to you tube when you’re waiting for a movie to load). A few seconds later the image ‘pops’ after Optics Pro has applied it’s benchmark settings in processing the RAW. Mostly, this is all you need, but you can adjust everything manually if you wish. One thing it does have which blows the socks off ACR is a superior noise control filter, with the new ‘PRIME’ option it really is much better.

I think it is a wonderful piece of software, if a bit processer hungry. I find the computer a bit slow after closing the program, so I usually restart, or leave my Optics Pro work to the end of a session, when the computer is going off anyway.

The point is, do not blindly follow everyone by going for Lightroom or Photoshop. You can use other software, and maybe some of it is actually better – how do you know, how can you trust Adobe? until you try something else, something maybe better?

When you install Optics Pro, from the ‘get-go’ it behaves slightly differently. Clicking on an image, the software first looks to see what camera body, and what lens, was used in making the image. The software uses a huge set of profiles for each camera model, and the same for lenses, so when you initially use the software, in my case, it downloaded the profile for the D5200, and the 18-140mm lens. Later on, when working on my images, sometimes I would click on one where a different lens / camera body was in use. The software picked this up, and then a small window opens up asking you ‘DXO Opics Pro has a lens profile for the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 Nikon fit, do you want to install this profile now?’

Same thing happens if a different camera was used on your older images etc.

So you get the right profile for your camera lens combo, for each image – which is why the benchmark adjustments made by the software are very very close to true, or pure, imagery. Of course you can, if you want, overide these benchmarks, for particular purposes, and of course, if you save as a Tiff (best quality) you can then open the resulting Tiff in any version of photoshop if you’re going to use filters etc.

Wonderful software, and opened my eyes to the world without Adobe – and it’s major strength is that it is based on YOUR camera and YOUR lens, instead of a generic program with lots of sliders, where you have to do it all yourself, such as in ACR, in particular, which is NOT optimised for ANY camera or ANY lens. (Though you can set a lens profile -but not a camera profile – in ACR if you remember to do it).

Optics Pro allows you to process images much quicker, and you can move onto the next image as soon as you set the ‘save to disk’ process on the previous one. It saves quietly in background as you work away on the next image.

This is beginning to sound like an ad, sorry about that, but the one month (full version) free trial is something everyone should take up anyway… I converted to the full software after the month was up and never doubted my choice.

@autufocusross Another one completely missing the point. Mark and I were not criticising the use of any one piece of software or insisting that Lightroom or Photoshop were the only acceptable editing programmes, we were criticising the lack of any coherent process at all. Poor process leads to poor results. I care passionately about results which is why I also care so much about process. It really, really matters. You cannot write a brilliant novel without first learning to spell.

I think not! I was only pointing out an excellent alternative to the institutionalised Adobe software that we sometimes feel constrained by, and into.

Of course the end result is what matters, that is why I spend good money on a lens that can do what my original lens cannot.

DXO Optics Pro is to my mind, the start of the process for most of my images. Sometimes the RAW needs little if any changes, for which I convert (no choice, Adobe don’t provide ACR updates) into DNG and then use Photoshop 6’s version of ACR instead.

You and I have had previous discussions about some of the reasons why we both much prefer DxOMark OpticsPro over Adobe products…thanks for taking the time to share your perspectives here!

I had a chance to talk to the head trainer at DxOMark at a recent photographers’ event in Toronto conducted by Henry’s Camera. He filled me in on some of the other capabilities coming down the pipe…you will be absolutely thrilled with the enhancements!

While other companies like Adobe use estimations to try and correct lens distortions etc. in their software, DxOMark uses the results of tens of thousands of in-depth, detailed, and scientific profiles that they have developed in their labs when doing their individual tests on camera bodies and lenses.

DxOMark now has an incredible volume of scientific data on specific camera bodies and lenses that they are now integrating and bringing to market in their software which gives them a huge, and sustainable competitive advantage over companies like Adobe. I talked to many professional photographers at the Henry’s event who are starting to make the switch to DxoMark and leaving Adobe behind….and loving their results.

I also have been using DxOMark Viewpoint 2 and beginning to learn its incredible capabilities as well. I am planning on using this software extensively when I return from Greece with my laptop full of new images. The more I use and learn the DxOMark products the more I love them. I am planning on adding other software from this innovative company in the New Year and eventually use their entire suite. Once their software is capable of spot corrections…which is coming by the way….the overall functionality of their suite of products will simply be incredible. If they can also integrate plug-ins for Topaz and Nik…I will be in heaven.

I used DxO Optics Pro (it’s not called DxOMARK by the way) since version 4 and up to and including version 8. I agree with you that the lens corrections are absolutely fabulous, also the colour results are very pleasing. Nevertheless I switched to LR for two I reasons. 1) I was fed up with the many hangs and crashes that occurred and the excruciating slow rendering of the preview while editing. 2) I missed the option of local adjustments. So when I bought a new camera last year and it required an upgrade from Standard to Elite, I choose LR, which at that time was cheaper than the upgrade. Still I mis some of its features.

As to your original article I too was somewhat lost by the many twist and turns you made, and I freely admit that I had the feeling there should be an easier way, but you were very clear in explaining that this was *your* way and never suggested it was *the* way. So no blame should come your way, let alone derogative comments.

Maybe a challenge for all the people who objected: take the raw file, get similar aesthetic result at better image quality AND explain in a well written article how they achieved this with “proper” workflow. The only catch is that you would have to provide the raw file.

I have not had any issues with ‘hangs’ or ‘crashes’ at all using OpticsPro. Part of that could be the hardware that I am using which my tech-savvy son built from scratch to handle my huge video processing requirements.

Hi Thomas, nice to see you’re remaining a keen optics pro user – the more I use it, the better it gets (and the better I do) Just shot a bee on a flower, using my nice new Sigma 105mm EX DG OS HSM (whew!) macro – and after using DXO Optics Pro on the Raw file, you can see this bee has blond hair, I kid you not! behind his neck, just where the head section meets the body section, alongside the wing hinges.

The detail and noise reduction is just so good – nothing touches it, not on my computer anyway. From what you say, DXO have some amazing stuff in the pipeline, I do hope it is as good as it sounds!

Adobe are going to rue the day they turned on their customers with this Cloud subscription nonsense. It was this, plus their inability to sustain ACR updates over time (forcing a re-purchase of photoshop when you change cameras) which turned me away from them.

Its amazing how DXO thought of integrating all the computer test results on camera bodies and lenses to produce this very-specific-to-you raw editor.

WOW…sounds like DxO OpticsPro is not only doing a great job for you…but you must have also captured a remarkable image!

I am really looking forward to the continued development of programs by DxO and based on my discussion with their key training guy and the types of things DxO is planning to introduce, it certainly seems like that have the professional photographer market clearly in their sights. The company does not seem to be satisfied with producing an excellent RAW image processor…but also expanding into a complete and comprehensive suite of products.

going off topic, I know and apologise, but I’ve only had my Sigma macro for a week and it’s taken that long to figure it out (specialist lenses sometimes have a mind of their own, and this Sigma needs to be understood, before you can start to reap the rewards it offers).

Wish I could post the image for you to see, but theres nothing in the forum I can see to do this. Trust me, this is a blonde haired bee.

It seemed appropriate, since the threads relate in part to post processing procedures adopted by individuals, sorry if you read it that way.

On the subject however, Optics Pro can output a Tiff for further editing in any other software, so you can do ‘most of your post’ in Optics Pro, and finish off in something else, for local corrections, filter effects, or whatever it is you want to do.

Most of the reviews of Optics Pro (particularly ‘group tests’ which compare post processing software) go out of their way to point out that Optics Pro is not a complete editing package, but a great Raw processor – and I more than agree with that.

I have read the article with some interest; looking over the shoulder of how another photographer processes his images. By reading between the lines one might well glean some new ideas. At minimum either you (Nasim) or the author should have added a warning:

Well said Nasim. Learning about new ways to do post processing is good.

I think it was Thumper in Disney’s Bambi film who said “If you can’t say nothing nice then don’t say nothing at all” The people who are simply rude and negative might like to think about it before making their comments.

Where did I say that we should all congratulate each other ? Don’t put words in my mouth. Constructive criticism is fine we can all learn from that Its the destructive comments and the rudeness that is unnecessary.

I agree with David. It’s not the content of what you said but the way you said it. Tom’s workflow doesn’t work for me, and obviously not for you, but it does for him. When you use harsh, judgmental comments to express your opinion rather than simply stating what works for you, no one can take in what you have to say.

Hi Tom, Thanks for sharing your work flow for your air show photos and for your review of the Tamron lens. The dramatic change from the original photo to the final product looks fantastic. I have been teaching post processing and photography in general for many years and want to make sure your readers are aware there is a more efficient way to reach the same goal. I don’t have time to go into detail but recommend they look into online or local classes or meet with local photography groups to work on improving their efficiency if needed. Again thanks to you and the PL group for sharing your passion and knowledge so freely. Disclaimer: I have not been teaching photography or post processing at all but wanted to point out how a “professional” and polite response could have been presented. You could then also offer to help Tom improve his workflow or written an article as suggested by Tom if you were inclined. It’s not hard. Thanks PL team and keep up the good work.

Keep on flowing in with these interesting articles, Nasim. You did a great job. We must learn and explore other workflow approach. Just like photography, there are many approaches to take a photo of a subject. You don’t want to keep only one rule. It kills creativity.

Agree ,good article and so important that we each find what works for us. I look at reviews from people who have extensive experience with a piece of equipment/ Technology and not the reviewers who had the equipment for a quick overview and express opinion rather that extensive practical experience. The Nikon Df is one such piece of equipment. Many people hate the camera as it does not offer, 2 cards, bad controls, etc etc. Well I was sceptical but as I came from the film days and used a F3 and old Minolta XG-1. I gave it a try, it is infectious, once you start to use it you don’t want to put it down. The IQ is outstanding and as combination with the D810, what a pair…I even used it this weekend for some wildlife, yes it is not a speed camera, the focus system is much better than what reviewers say it is..Sat next to a guy in a Bird hide with it on my 300 f2.8 who looked at me with disgust, could not understand why I would dare to use it, as the sun set and the light dropped, he packed up his Canon 7D and 500 f4 lens, and then I whispered to him, “now the fun starts”, Some kingfishers came in sitting less than 15 yrds from the hide and I got some great shots at ISO 12800, even an action shot of one diving into the water, tack sharp, at ISO 12800 with almost no noise. But for most, the D810 is my main wildlife and Landscape camera, the Df for everything else and low light. Yes Choise is a beautiful thing..

Your points about choices are 100% right (and every well thinking person will agree), but it is very sad that you have to write this article.

I have been a professional visual artist for over 30 years and came lately into photography. If you create a piece of art every little step, from the first second you started, is a choice. There is no good or wrong and every piece of art is the result of personal choices (accompanied with personal struggle).

It is a pity so many photographers are unable to think in a creative way…

I like Thomas’ articles and attitude. But for me, lens evaluation usually needs some comparative basis. You can extract colorful and well-composed pictures of airplanes from a Tamron 150-600mm lens, fine, but I still don’t know if these are “good enough” for any particular level of use? Next to the images from a Nikon 200-400mm, would the quality be at all similar? At what level would an editor say “not good enough”? Local newspaper, National Geographic? I actually borrowed and used the 150-600mm for a week , my impression was that it is surprisingly sharp, but somehow lacking in ‘punch’.

Nasim, thank you PL for all that you do. I am a contented patron of your articles, and read them all, and look forward to them. Some I agree with, sometimes, I question things. That’s what makes it great, the forum to debate is one that always bears the greatest fruit. Thanks for planting a good field again!

I have been tracking PhotographyLife for some time now (mansurovs.com, as it was!). The thing that was a real revelation to me was not the brilliant articles (although they are brilliant), but it was the honest and encouraging comments which were left by the readership. I hadn’t come across a public website where readers genuinely wanted to make a positive contribution to each other’s understanding, as well as encouraging the writer.

It created a unique culture and meant that I personally was just as interested to read the comments as I was the main article.

I was very sad to read some of the comments on both this article and the previous one to which it relates. The kind of one-line, emotionally-driven, personal-attack comments which appear in the thread are the total opposite of the very thing that makes PhotographyLife unique and special.

I know that there is a delicate balance between moderating a thread and allowing people to express genuinely held views on a subject. However, I want to recommend that you take a more robust line in your moderation, otherwise the essence of what makes this site so special is going to be lost, and it will end up as the mass of other sites which litter the internet which become personal slanging matches between anonymous posters. One-line personal attacks or terse generalisations are like graffiti on a newly painted wall – they look messy and degrade the quality of the area.

I know that the articles will continue to be awesome – and the new writers that have joined since I’ve been with the site are great additions. But I also like the ‘community spirit’ and ‘culture’ of the site, a lot of which is driven by the comments.

Please don’t sacrifice one of your core USPs for fear of offending a minority of posters. They will drag the site down to a run-of-the-mill photography site otherwise.

Well said. If an inclusive, tolerant, and more positive attitude was enjoined by people, rather than a critical and negative one, there would be much less conflict in the world today. Learning is about sharing. Sharing takes courage. Take what helps and forget the rest–don’t attack.

@Noel No one was attacked. There is no way of pointing out an error other than saying it’s an error and then explaining why it’s an error. Inconsistencies and errors were pointed out and a constructive example of a sound, photographic workflow was given.

I read Tom’s article and thought “No way I could work like this. That’s a lot of back and forth.” I didn’t even feel the need to write what I thought. His way of doing this is not better than mine. He didn’t even get to imply that.

So, why the aggressiveness? I really can’t understande why some people are so unnecessarily rude on the comments.

Well said! I hope Tom and the rest of the team don’t stop putting out articles that are “decentered” just because there are some out there with narrow minds. Doing things slightly different, no matter what anyone says, is also a good way to teach, because it challenges people to think that a bit differently and innovate more, even if it is not “your cup of tea”. If people just want the normal, they can read the manual. Keep doing what you guys are doing!

I don’t normally get involved in debates like this but I’m going to make an exception here. I can see both sides of this and I think that both Betty and Mark had a right to say what they did and I agree that the workflow was convoluted (at least to me). But, personally, if I had said that I wouldn’t have kept labouring the point and fanning the flames of argument. After all it was just their opinion and whilst in the strictest sense workflow should, well, flow and this didn’t Tom did say that was just how he did it and he wasn’t saying it was the best way to do so. He was answering a question that somebody had asked him, whether that was the best choice for a full article is debatable (again, in my opinion).

It seems some people are expecting all articles on PL to be from world experts and then critical when they aren’t (and I’m not just referring to Tom’s article here). I find many informative articles on here but I also find others I either disagree with or that just don’t interest me as they’re not about types of photography I do or equipment I ever plan to use. But I fully expect that as the world is a diverse place and would be boring if we all thought the same). So I read most of the articles, enjoy and learn what I can and ignore the rest). I (normally) don’t feel the need to post comments. Yes, the debate can be useful and if something is factaully incorrect then it should be commented on and equally it’s good when people express their differing opinions and have a healthy debate as we can learn from that too. But please people can we keep it polite and civil? The internet is sadly full of places where there is nothing but arguments and anger, lets not make this one too.

On the point Nasim makes about other workflow tools I think that is a very good one. I don’t use Lightroom and have no intention of doing so. I’m an amateur and do photography for fun and keep post processing to a minimum. As a Nikon Capture NX2 user I’m facing being left high and dry if I ever change my camera so the idea of articles on using other products is interesting to me. So far I’ve had a play with DX Optics Pro and a few other tools but I still keep coming back to NX2. Why? Because I’m used to using it so the workflow suits me (you could say it has molded my workflow which makes others seem awkward) and I find it gives me the best results. At the moment I’m looking at switching to Linux and have experimented with Dark Table (I find the menu systems too obscure) and Raw Therapee (so far it seems quite promising) so any article on different tools is most welcome in my book.

There are some incredibly narrow-minded (and thinking) people in this world, so there will always be those that criticize anything when it goes against their way of “thinking”. I attended a one-on-one session last spring with one of the best wildlife photographers on the planet, and his workflow is quite different than the usual Lightroom (and optionally Photoshop) way of doing things. Is he stupid for not doing it the “standard” way? Of course not! His work is exceptional, and he can justify and prove why he does what he does and why Lightroom isn’t the silver bullet everyone thinks it is. Lightroom is a great Swiss Army Knife for cataloging, RAW processing, and output to web or print, but just like the Swiss Army Knife, there are better tools out there for handling specific post-processing steps.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was not espousing one software programme over another or indeed one workflow over another – just the need to have a coherent and methodical workflow. Without that processing becomes a shambles with loss of quality and inconsistent results. If someone wants to work that way then that’s fine but let’s not pretend that it represents a photographic workflow in the accepted sense or that any acceptable result emerging from that ‘approach’ (as so many of you put it!) is anything more than a lucky accident. It’s just aimless rambling; blundering, ignorant shooting in the dark.

There you go again. No one is arguing or disagreeing with your point of view. It’s just the added stuff that’s unacceptable in a forum like this. Maybe you need to go on some discussion workflow-type course. You can easily have said what you mean without the “It’s just aimless rambling; blundering, ignorant shooting in the dark.” type comments. That just shows total lack understanding anyone else’s point of view. If that was a real life type discussion, no one would even consider what you say as valid because of the type of remarks you tack on at the end.

You can easily say something is an error without adding words like “ignorant” and “shambles” but I assume you do so to add effect or provoke. Either way, you need to learn some things in order to be taken seriously.

It seems to me that just about everyone here is disagreeing with my point of view.

The prevalent point of view here seems to be anything is OK, that there is no right or wrong, that everything is a matter of opinion or personal choice and nothing really matters very much. Well God help us all and the whole world if that were to be applied universally.

On that basis, photographically speaking, incorrect exposure doesn’t really matter, poor focussing is a matter of choice and blind ignorance of digital editing is just fine.

No I don’t think they are Betty, just as Nasim’s post pointed out. It’s how you communicate it. In my field (not photography), I like everything to be by-the-book, totally accurate because at each stage you introduce errors. I don’t like the “this’ll do attitude” in my profession, but there are people that teach things slightly different to how we are taught. Even If I don’t agree with them, or the others that have the “this’ll do”, I can’t insult them because it isn’t professional. I can agree to disagree while not using provoking language. And even if I think their methods are awful and not evidence-based, there is mostly always something in their methods that you can learn.

It’s hard to imagine you do have a life outside PL because you seem to be on here all the time posting acerbic comments :P

But seriously, I think the issue most people take is not what you say but the tone in which you say it. I realise you are unrepentant about being ‘plain-spoken’ as you put it, but the problem is the rest of us find it difficult to take you seriously when that tone suggests someone full of bitterness, negativity and anger.

Which is a shame because you may not actually be any of those things, and you may have something truly useful to contribute. You may well be a very popular person with tons of friends who all yearn for the warmth of your company and worship you as an awesome photographer, but it doesn’t come across.

It may not matter to you (and your comments suggest it doesn’t), but there is big a difference in civility between saying, for example: “I respectfully disagree with your article and wish to offer an alternative view which your readers may find helpful….I have XYZ experience which I think qualifies me to offer this other perspective…”

And saying something in a tone that sounds like: “No, no, no, you’re rubbish and you’re totally wrong and I’m better than you and I’m a true professional unlike the rest of you amateur losers because I do XYZ…”

Most people would simply feel disgust and/or pity for the latter version and totally bypass what you have to offer, regardless of how significant you thought it was.

If you disagree with something you must absolutely feel free to say so. No one disputes that. But since you’re mostly talking to relative strangers around the world a little politeness and empathy in your tone will help your words go a lot further; basic human communication skills. The comments in reaction to yours seem to overwhelmingly bear this out.

I may be wasting my time with all this but it’s just a humble suggestion.

Thank you for your gentle and humane observation. You are right in many ways, I do have a tendency to go in with all guns blazing – which I will try to curb in future. The problem, for me at least, is that like you, I have a scientific background where rigorous training step by step from the ground up is a given and questioning and challenging muddled thinking, poor practice and unfounded opinions is actively encouraged. I always try to achieve the very best result of which I am capable and am intolerant of, as you put it, the ‘that’ll do’ attitude and claiming to be using an individual ‘approach’ when in fact what is going on is just an unwillingness to make the effort to learn. While I do express my views with vigour I try not to be offensive or abusive – although being direct seems to offend some people. These same people apparently then seem to think it perfectly OK to be overtly abusive in their responses which of course leads to acerbic comments in return. It is odd, don’t you think, that the only other person to have raised a criticism on this forum and who was in no way rude or abusive to anyone, was attacked even more savagely than I? It is odd too, that Mark and I, apparently the only two on this forum who have have a pretty thorough understanding of our subject (apologies to anyone else out there who qualifies) have been castigated for promulgating a reasoned, orderly and scientifically sound approach to learning and effectively using quite complex and sophisticated editing software with a view to achieving optimal results. It is odd too, that with the exception of Thomas, not one person has made a single comment on the workflow I was challenged to submit. I suspect the challenge was issued to myself and Mark in the expectation of ‘uncovering’ us as purveyors of BS. Well, we actually do know what we are talking about (but not, I hasten to add, everything about everything) which seems to have left our detractors with very little to say other than to attack us personally. One has to wonder whether this forum is about learning or simply about self congratulation and mutual reinforcement of poor practice.

the first thing students today should learn ( or be teached) , is to develop a criteria to filter information freely available in the internet. This is a new age, this skill is essential to be able to use the great thing the internet is.

I do not believe the authors that provide this content have ever claimed it to be a textbook, nor an academic resource. Nor they charge for it as such.

That said, I find the content of this website to excel in quality, compared to many of the other available resources in the internet. But mostly it excels on well manners and great community spirit, which was lacking in the comments provided by some on last article.

I rather learn from a teacher that may be occasionally wrong, and admits it so, and keeps a positive attitude while being willing to learn more and correct, than from someone that claims to have the absolute truth, the only solution to complex problems, as “it should be done”, with zero tolerance from other views, and a negative attitude.

Because the first teacher will evolve, learn and we will all help him to do so. He will get to the level of the other teacher, and keep on going, because of his open attitude, and willingness to keep improving.

And remember, photography expression is not a science, and even in science, paradigms and “right ways” should be challenged continuously. Or else we would still be living in a flat earth.

It appears Betty just won’t give up. If it doesn’t fit whatever her definition of accepted workflow is, then the process used is “just aimless rambling; blundering, ignorant shooting in the dark.” And, a nice result, if not accomplished by this obvious-to-Betty-accepted workflow, could only be an accident.

Let’s cut her some some slack, when she grows up she’ll come to realize that only by challenging the old so-called “norms” have people moved from script to typewriters and then to computers, and gazillions of other new ways of doing things. Surely one has to look no further than their GPS unit (or better yet a map!) to realize there are many ways to get to a destination. Many more people than Tom have been criticized for working through a problem in a new or different way, but it should end there, not with extra allegations of ignorance. For some people the journey to a final product has to be short & quick. For others, the journey is just as much a part of the enjoyment as the ending.

Instead of worrying about the rants of the Bettys of the world, it’s much easier to wake up every morning feeling “Ducky” – so no matter what crap comes your way you just let it roll off your back like a duck in the rain. And meanwhile, for the folks with their heads in the sand, as the wind blows and time passes, two things can happen: 1) the sand deepens and they never see a new view, or 2) some sand blows away and they get a chance to see variations in the world.

I commented on the original post. I liked Tom’s images. I got a few ideas from his processing, knew about others already, and had different schemes for others. Didn’t care if he spent 2 minutes or an hour on an image. Didn’t care if it was saturated more or less than I might have done. I have color-blind friends that appreciate my images. They see the same thing I do, just differently, and that’s ok!

I am all for challenging accepted norms – my career was spent doing that – that and always using an evidence based approach. What I challenge is an unwillingness to learn sometimes challenging new techniques and making excuses for that unwillingness by claiming instead to have a new ‘approach’ or ‘working through a problem in a different way’. That seems to be the current catchword for those who can’t be bothered to learn the basic, essential ‘tools of the trade’ before launching out on their ‘creative journey’. What a laugh.

– “It is odd too, that with the exception of Thomas, not one person has made a single comment on the workflow I was challenged to submit.”

Probably because you gave it to us after shoving your opinions at us so rudely that no one wants to take in anything else you have to say. If you were polite in your responses in the first place, people might actually take you more seriously and be incentivised to listen to you. It’s a little ironic that someone who professes to be so qualified and educated can lack these communication skills. Maybe you live by yourself and don’t spend much time around people. Who knows. I doubt anyone genuinely wants to attack you, but the rudeness of your ‘plain spoken’ tone and attitude just puts everyone off. A shame because you may have offered us something useful to deliberate on. But now we will just let it all just drift past us and be none the wiser.

Alas, all we have really learned from you is not that you know what you are talking about (which you may well do), but that you obviously have so much seething contempt for everyone else. If you were capable of compassion, empathy and respect, qualities you unapologetically believe are beneath you, you wouldn’t be the subject of so much heated reaction.

Respect for your view isn’t an entitlement. On a forum full of strangers from all over the world you really have to earn it by being respectful in your tone. Only then might we actually listen to your wisdom and perhaps learn something from it.

Actually you’re right, some of that went a little too far. Apologies – but I agree with most of it. I just feel that you could be a little gentler with people. It’s up to you of course, and perhaps it isn’t an issue at all in your everyday life, but it certainly seems that the majority here, myself included, found your tone provocative from the outset. As you’ve already pointed, the words that you used were never offensive or abusive – it’s just about tone for me.

Anyway, you have no reason to take advice on communications skills from me – lord knows none of us are perfect.

I have just “joined” Photography Life and have until now found all the info on the site and the forum to be of a high standard and I do not usually get involved in these “debates” but please remember that……..

Just a short while ago we used transparency or negatives for our photos. If the “trannies” were not exposed correctly they could be “pushed” or “held back” during processing, otherwise you had to accept what came out – good or bad images. With negatives you had to allow for problems in the darkroom stage a bit of “burning” or “dodging”. You really had to know your craft and it was generally get it right first time!!

Digital imaging for many people has, to some degree, helped us bypass this and together with the range of cameras out in the market it has opened up a whole new vista to all ages and all levels of experience. This has given an opportunity for camera and software manufacturers to provide an array of post processing packages that allow all these people to manipulate their images in any which way they please.

It is a real problem for people to understand which package would be right for them because of the claim and counter claim by the manufacturers and/or end user preferences.

Therefore a web site like this one is used by people to try and understand if all these claims are genuine or not, and what experienced photographers can recommend. It is that experience that people are looking for and because everyone is different we all approach a problem in a different way and recommendations will differ accordingly.

As long as they are happy with the result who are we to sit at our computers and use an otherwise excellent forum to “impose” our views on others.

We professional and experienced photographers should always be impartial to all and do everything to help those aspiring to improve their knowledge and ability so that we can all enjoy what is an amazing profession and hobby to many.

How many people have now been turned off by all the hassle that has gone on so far?

How many people are now going to hold off from offering their opinion or ways of doing things?

If some of you can’t agree then why just agree to disagree and hold off the aggravation.

In my 50+ years of photography there has always been a difference of opinion but it is all in the eye of the beholder as to what is right or wrong with an image and how the photographer got to that point is entirely up to them.

And as a member of the Royal Photographic Society I have seen a vast array of professional and amateur photographs and descriptions of how they got there that would keep some of you arguing for years.

I am from India. Could you pls suggest an entry level DSLR from Nikon since I am stepping into this world now. I am confused between D3200 vs D3300. Budget is also constraint. Budget would allow only D3200, but heart wants D3300. What should I choose?

The D3200 is great! I own one, and it does a great, great job. For me, I wouldn’t worry about the D3300 if budget won’t allow for it; you aren’t going to miss enough to even worry about since this is your entry DSLR. Get the D3200 and learn everything you can from it, then you’ll want to progress past the D3300.

Remember: with either of the two cameras, you won’t be able to autofocus if you buy a lens that requires the camera body to control the lens, which means you will have to manually focus. For a bit more money, the next-level DSLRs will have a focus motor built into the camera. So just always check that the lens you are getting, if you get any, has a built-in focus motor.

Until the D3300 came out, Ken used to say the same thing about the D3200; that if you were to get any camera (particularly to start out), get the D3200. He’s not changed his mind, per se, because the D3200 and D3300 are still much the same camera.

When I opened Tom’s article this weekend (as I read just about everything you guys do, and see this site as the best site around for learning about Photography in general and Nikon gear in particular), my first thought was that he had really achieved a remarkable improvement. In my mind, pulling those colours out is remarkable, although I would not have gone so far in a nature photo. But when I started reading I saw that firstly he was using programs that I don’t and secondly it seemed like quite a long process, and so I simply stopped reading. What’s so difficult about that?

What would be interesting is if some of the people who said they could do better, showed us how?

Have a look at my post No 138 in “Post – Processing Difficult Images” and try to ignore the arguments! It leads you step by step through all the essential steps in Lightroom. You likely won’t need all the steps but they are all there if you do.

How much colour, contrast, etc you pull out of, or apply to, an image is your own creative decision.

Lightroom is a great programme to start with as it provides a complete, orderly workflow from RAW file to output print or JPEG all in the same software without the need for other programmes. For a beginner trying to get to grips with too many programmes at the same time can end in terrible muddle and confusion. Best keep it simple to start with and build up from there.

Once you get proficient there, you may want branch out into Photoshop or one of the other excellent plug ins out there like Topaz or Nik software.

I have enjoyed reading your site for a few years now, and have been most impressed with how it has grown and expanded. The quality of the site, especially considering it is free, is outstanding, at least to my eyes. The vast majority of your articles are clearly appreciated and it is unfortunate that a few very aggressive people have recently distracted from things. As the title of the article of says, choice is a great thing. We all read sites and pick and choose what is useful and sounds good to try, and I know yours is one of the first sites I look at. So many thanks for all your efforts!

It had to be said and you said it well, you have my utmost respect for providing all of us with a great forum. And yes, I’m sure you knew that even this post by you would produce a plethora of positive and negative comments. It’s all part of the game. Thank you and I thank all the contributors for their articles.

Wonderful comment. Thank you. Mike, I consider you to be one of the voices of wisdom and reason here on PL. I enjoy your insights. Yesterday, we certainly could have used your participation (maybe even Patrick’s O’Connor’s) to help defend Tom Stirr. It was a dark day here on PL. Hopefully, Nasim and his Team will take prompt action to bar ongoing and future scurrilous participation from these two individuals.

Thank you for your kind thoughts. I read Thomas’ article and thought it sounded like my convoluted meandering around Light Room. LOL. As a professional photographer for many years I’m first learning to use the post processing software that has been recommended to me. I don’t use Photo Shop but do use Matrix and Nic Silver Effects and Photo Pro. I hardly understand what I’m looking at and that is why I employ several outside pro labs most of the time. When it comes to simple stuff as Thomas mentioned I just muck around until I get what I want.

After reading the article and then some of the comments I decided to not get involved in such drivel. I just felt it unfortunate that there are those, here on THIS, board who would take the time to bash Thomas’ methods rather than suggest a better option. However, if Thomas and I went out shooting one day I’m sure he might watch some of my old methods and question why I was doing what I’m doing. My first answer would be…because that it the way I learned and am used to doing things. We all perform in way that are comfortable. We all work with highly sophisticated cameras and equipment. I don’t think I use more than 10% of what my cameras can do because I shoot mostly in manual. I’m positive that statement alone will cause some to think I’m an amateur. At 69 years of age, I don’t care. I earn a very nice living in my specific fields of photography.

I just think those of us here on Photography Life should take a step back before posting. Since our author contributors take their time to offer instruction, suggestions and insight to what it is they do we should honor them for that alone and not stir up the pot just because we don’t agree.

I know what I’m doing when it comes to making images. However, at 69 I’m a late bloomer to computers, computer programs and much of the soft ware out there. I finally got the hang of Light Room and like what it can do for most things but I’m still mucking around, (as you put it) with the rest of the software I use. I’m so bad at it, I still use pro labs to manage my critical work. Thank goodness they are kind to an old geezer.

On the contrary Mike, the fact that you meter manually is the mark of a professional – someone who understands exposure and knows how to apply it (and modify it when necessary) in every situation. Blind reliance on automation is rarely a good thing.

Betty, thank you for your comments. Of course like everyone else I do use in camera metering also but prefer to shoot in manual and make adjustments as I see the scene and understand the variations in lighting for the image I want to produce. I’m just more comfortable with the hand held light meter.

Well put Nasim. I think my problem with some of the reaction to Tom’s article is indicative of much of what people post on forums etc – many of them insist on employing such an unnecessarily adversarial tone. It’s the age in which we live I suppose, but good manners and cordial debate shouldn’t be too much to ask!

I have read Thom’s article and some of the comments that followed, I have also read this article by Nasim and was pleasantly surprised, yet again, by his patience. Still got a lot to learn from you, my friend, and here is my attempt.

After what I’ve read, I want to first of all thank Thomas. Not only did he take the time to write an article describing his steps in detail – and I know how much time and effort some articles take rather well – but he also managed to stay perfectly polite and civil in the comments section even though, at times, he was addressed less than graciously. Rude, offensive, aggressive comments can have a huge impact on ones willingness to write. And if some think we expect nothing else but praise for every single piece we write, I am sorry to say you are wrong – we merely hope to see gratitude for the effort, not necessarily a supporting opinion. I once told one of our readers – make yourself at home, but always remember you are a guest. This time, I want to add to that – we write for you, our dear readers, but not because we owe you something and not because we have nothing better to do. We do not owe anyone anything, nor do you owe us. We merely choose to write, as you may choose to read. And if you do read, don’t feel as if you must agree with everything we say. But if you do not feel at least a little grateful for our effort (I want to emphasize this part), perhaps there is something you are missing here.

I am glad you are part of our team, Thomas, and hope to see more articles from you.

As for Betty and Mark, I want to say something a lot of you might find unexpected. I want to stand up for them a little bit. I believe that their initial intentions were not to dismiss Thomas’ article, but to say that his workflow has flaws, as in it is not very well organized/thought through and involves some questionable steps. And you know what, Betty and Mark? It does. I agree with that statement. And you know why? Because Thomas is not a professional. He never said he was. I wrote a whole bunch of articles on Lightroom and will write even more (I admit I grew tired of them a little), but I am not a professional either. In fact, no one in our team is a post-processing professional. We are not scientists in white coats, we are not software developers, and we don’t actually enjoy doing sharpness tests and what not all that much. We are photographers, nothing more or less. And what we share is our experience, our approach, one that may become radically different in a year or even a month.

So I believe Betty and Mark merely wanted to express their opinion, but chose the wrong way to do it. And once it’s done and so many people got agitated by the way the opinion was expressed, it is sort of hard to come back and express it in a less offensive way. Because, all of a sudden, you are being attacked and, consequently, need to start defending yourself. It’s not a nice place to find yourself in, and not an easy one to get out of.

So here is my proposal – let’s forget the whole thing. If you started off on the wrong foot, reset, try again. Because I am certain that, should we ever meet for a cup of tea of coffee, we’d find tons of things to talk about and not a single rude word to say to each other. I am pretty certain Mark, Betty and the majority of our readers are actually very, very nice people. Why? Because – and I have no intention of being shy here – Lola, Nasim, Thomas, Tom, Bob, John, myself and everyone else who will ever write or has ever written for Photography Life is nice. We are! I swear, we really are. And I would like to think we attract nice people. Not those who agree with our every word, but those who know how to express themselves in a pleasant manner.

That is all we ask for. That, and to let us learn just as you learn. Words are good, of course, but in the end, why don’t we let our work speak for us?

I agree there. In fact, I’d like to go one more step, Romanas. I’d actually like to hear more of what Betty has to say on a good workflow. We could probably learn from it. BUT and a fairly robust BUT, she’d have to communicate in a civil, scientific manner. Now I didn’t read the whole comment section on Tom’s post just because it became a shouting match, but somewhere in there, Betty had some points. I’d just wish she actually backed it up with good advice, not the scathing remarks. If she does spend time enough here to reply to comments then she is a member of the community. If she has a methodical, consistent approach to post-processing, I for one would like to see it. I have my own workflow in Lightroom, but I’m always curious to glean info from other people. After all, we never reach the pinnacle of what we do, we are continuously learning. Who ever says they have nothing else to learn, has no idea what they don’t know.

As I and others readers here have stated, and even Tom himself, Betty and Mark’s behavior was unprofessional, abusive, pejorative, arrogant, and counterproductive. Their ends do NOT justify their means.

Actually, I am disappointed that you are defending the disgusting behavior that Mark and Betty put on display. Mark and Betty have not demonstrated any scintilla of evidence that they are ‘nice’ people. Quite the opposite. Goodness, I’m just flabbergasted at that statement.There’s no defense of Mark and Betty did whatsoever. None! I, for one, hope that they never make another appearance on PL and make learning miserable for all.

We all know that Tom Stirr can take care of himself, but it would certainly would have been ‘nice’ if other contributors on PL could have entered the discussion to help defend Tom, who was under relentless *siege* from these two jerks. Very disappointing.

And here I was, hoping this whole story could end in at least somewhat sensible way. Emphasis on *end*, because I believe everyone is growing tired of it and would rather go back to photography.

Donald, I am not defending them for what they said and how they said it. I am merely stating that *it’s enough*, because if they have to keep defending themselves, it will further put off their realization of what they did wrong and, as a consequence, anything they could say or do to rectify for the way they expressed their opinion. And so it is enough. For both “sides”. Because right now some of our other readers are doing the siege approach instead of taking the, how do they call it, high road? I am grateful to Thomas, hence the beginning of my comment, and I will talk to him “behind the scenes” if it is needed as it will do much more good than what’s been going on in the comments thus far, so you should not worry about that.In the end, I would not call me attacking Betty and Mark the same as defending him. It would just be me attacking Betty and Mark for attacking Thomas, and I’d rather not attack anyone.

Yes, fair enough. But keep in mind that this is Betty’s second such transgression. Remember Sharif’s article discussion on the meaning of wildlife photography back in June? Another disgrace. Betty was as equally rude and obnoxious then as he is now. I’m just pointing out a pattern. Betty will be back again with the same behavior, unfortunately. He seems to be on a 3-month cycle.

Donald, thank you for your concern for Thomas and for being a loyal reader of PL, we’re glad you’re here.

“We all know that Tom Stirr can take care of himself, but it would certainly would have been ‘nice’ if other contributors on PL could have entered the discussion to help defend Tom, who was under relentless *siege* from these two jerks. Very disappointing.”

Please rest assured that each PL contributor supports Tom, but the fact that we all didn’t jump in to the discussion, so to speak, is because we felt that Tom was doing a good job of taking care of himself and responding civilly. Further, this post from Nasim should have been enough for both “sides”. Enough of the readers have made good points – mainly that how you say something can be as important as what you say. There have been many things that I thought about saying in this discussion, but decided instead to not comment. Why? Because it perpetuates this conversation which has gone on too long already. Earlier today I almost commented with a quote from Monty Python, “And now for something completely different”. I think it is time that we all move on to something completely different. I’m only replying to reassure you that we support Tom, but at the same time we support civil discussion – even when there are differences – as that is how we all learn. Enough people have called for civility, even Betty has stated that he will try to respond in a different tone (I’m paraphrasing here since I don’t want to have to re-read the thread for his exact words) in the future. There wasn’t much that I could say that hadn’t been repeatedly said already and regardless of what I said, someone would take offense and further the joust. My initial reaction to your comment was to not reply, but then I thought that maybe I should reassure you that a lack of commentary on a subject beaten so thoroughly as it has been here, didn’t mean that we don’t support a fellow contributor.

Again, thank you Donald. Hopefully, both you and Tom will forgive me for what appeared to be my lack of support. Things are not always as they may seem.

Roman, well said and thank you.

Bobby Vishneski, you make me laugh.

Tom Stirr, thank you, I appreciate you putting yourself out there and sharing.

To everyone that I haven’t specifically addressed, including Betty and Mark, let’s go take a photo or two and have some fun, life is too short to spend it at odds with one another! Bring all the good that you can and let’s see if we can add to it by learning from each other.

This was not any kind of a personal issue….so no ‘personal defense’ was required from anyone.

One of the things that I have always held in the highest regard is the level of professionalism, collaboration and decorum that Photography Life represents.

I think Photography Life readers who ‘took up the torch’ were doing so in defense of this wonderful site and what it represents to them. If there was any feeling of violation in all of this…it was that of our loyal readers who saw THEIR site and the way that they have come to expect discourse here to be conducted.

In closing I would like to share a short parable….

Two monks were walking to a neighboring monastery and conversing as they went. Time passed quickly and they were enjoying each other’s company.

They cam upon a stream that was swollen with rushing waters from rains up in the mountains. The current was so strong that it had washed away the only bridge to cross the stream for many miles. The monks noticed a women frantically running up and down the bank trying to find a place to cross.

The first monk approached and asked her why she was so frantic. The distraught woman explained that she had been visiting her parents in a neighboring village and had just gotten word that her husband had been hurt and she was desperate to get home to him.

The monk had great empathy for her so he took her hand and walked to the part of the stream that he thought was the safest place to try and cross. He then picked her up and waded against the raging waters and took her safely across the stream. He then put her down…she thanked him and ran off to attend to her husband.

The second monk, seeing that the stream was indeed capable of being crossed, waded in and made it to the other side. He then began to chastise the first monk for touching the women as this was forbidden by the vows that they took as monks. The first monk remained silent and continued on the path to the monastery. The second monk kept chastising him continually.

Finally the first monk stopped and said, “Look….I put that women down on this side of the bank hours ago. Why are you still holding on to her?” With that, he turned and continued on his journey.

Mr. Redd, thank you for your mature, even-tempered, and intelligent response. Like the elder (or younger?) Tom, you are a wise and good man. My apologies to you, Tom Stirr, Romanas, Nasim, your fellow PL contributors, and the good readers of Photography Life if I got out of hand and let tempers boil over. I apologize for stating that the PL contributors did not support Tom. That was inappropriate and I understand that nothing could be further from the truth. You guys are the best. All is forgotten, now. :-)

“So I believe Betty and Mark merely wanted to express their opinion, but chose the wrong way to do it. And once it’s done and so many people got agitated by the way the opinion was expressed, it is sort of hard to come back and express it in a less offensive way. Because, all of a sudden, you are being attacked and, consequently, need to start defending yourself. It’s not a nice place to find yourself in, and not an easy one to get out of.”

It is always good to hold on to a philosophical grounding as one goes through one’s life on a day-to-day basis. All of this is a simple reminder for me and leads me to a quote by Marcus Aurelius, “You have power over your mind – not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”

I have moved on and I am busy working on some client assignments right now…as well as some new articles for our wonderful family of readers here at Photography Life.

I also have another completed article which Nasim will likely publish within the next little while.

Thanks Romanas for introducing a little good sense and pouring some oil on troubled waters. You are right, after my initial comment I found myself attacked from all sides and my words being misrepresented no matter how many times I tried to explain my point of view. For good or bad, I never quit in a fight – which is why it got somewhat out of hand. I will try to be more moderate in future.

Following a logical structured plan is never a bad thing. It is the one sound base from which true creativity can grow.

If in the judgement of any reader, the writer has done or communicated something factually wrong, then he should be graciously corrected by the reader. If, however, the writer has done taken a different tack at solving a problem, then attacking him and his method is not warranted. Further, any approach by a reader who thinks he knows better that the writer ought to be a out of the spirit of a helpful teacher in correcting a person who can profit from learning a better way. This is attractive teaching. Driving a person away with insult and invective is counter productive as well as demonstrating a need for the reader’s further maturity himself. Let’s rise above the petty, Let’s appreciate effort. Let’s be grateful that people are willing to share what they know whether it is flawed or not.

I think I may have a slightly different solution, which comes from the movie, “Thunderdome.” “Two photographers enter, one photographer leaves.” To anyone that is the recipient of a disrespectful comment, he/she shall have the opportunity to issue a challenge to he/she that made the comment. The two can then square off and settle their differences in a specially-constructed metal cage. There will be no rules. Any photography gear one can find in B&H’s catalog will be fair game to take into the metal cage and be used against one’s adversary. Tripods, monopods, clamps, c-stands, sand bags, broken 600mm lenses (no longer any good for photography but would make a heck of a bludgeon), etc. – everything will legal. No mercy can be requested. None can be granted. The only way out is on your feet or in a body bag.

Of course, Photography Life will have exclusive distribution rights to stream the event live on pay-per-view. If people are going to have such knock-down drag-out fights on the site (and mimic some of the same distasteful nonsense that occurs on other photography sites), there is no reason they cannot do so in the ring, and in the process, boost the site’s popularity and revenue stream. At least that will make reading such comments a bit more tolerable to read and be followed-up with some entertaining battles.

As it stands, the internet allows people enjoy the freedom to insult others from behind the anonymity of their keyboards while dressed in their pajamas drinking hot chocolate in the comfort of their home. My proposal would take a small step toward fixing this problem. It would force the purveyors of snark out from behind the shadows and put them directly in front of those they are insulting. Surely that has to be a growth opportunity for them and great entertainment for the rest of us.

Your team at PL keeps it new, fresh and exciting. Please don’t let the “griefers” bother you; for your talent speaks for itself. PL is the ONLY online forum I read and follow, thank you and keep it up!

I too find it very hard to understand some of the rude, emotive, unhelpful or abusive comments which have been made by certain posters to this blog/forum (and sadly, this occurs in other forums as well), especially when these comments are made about one person’s individual workflow or preferred style of image post-processing. These sorts of unhelpful comments must surely put many readers right off from asking valuable questions of their own – especially when these questions might be viewed by certain people as being naive or potentially controversial. It is only by reading, thinking about and constructively answering such questions that we can all learn more about this wonderful art of “Photography”.

Provided we do not deliberately intend to provoke or offend others, then surely we all have a right to our own views, opinions, equipment preferences, accessories, workflows and post-processing styles? Personally, I am always very interested to read about other people’s individual experiences, styles, and suggestions etc. I always try to keep an open mind about what I read, even if I may ultimately disagree with what is being said.

We are all learning (or should be trying to!), whether we are a beginner, intermediate or seasoned pro. I really do think some people need to open their own minds a lot more … say from f16 to f1.4 … instead of seeing their own and everybody else’s world resolutely through a much narrower aperture, and then insisting that their particualr view or way is the only way.

Thank you to you and the PL team for creating and providing what I believe is THE best and most helpful, inspiring photo blogs available today.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.